|
Post by foley on Oct 25, 2017 9:53:32 GMT
Well in that case, why bother contributing to a thread which has that detail in the Opening Post? The OP makes it quite clear that far from putting money IN to Reading, the Thai consortium took it OUT. They pawned the stadium and training ground, asset-stripped the surrounding development land, for a total of circa £25 million, and used some of that money to pay for the running costs and pocketed the rest, whilst paying out large management fees to their associates. Those are FACTS clearly demonstrated in the OP. They did not "TAKE Reading into the play-offs in the Championship." They bought an existing Championship Club (which previously had been a Yo-Yo club to the Premier League) that had long had a top 6 playing budget (Reading had a parachute payment when they took over and a playing budget of over £20 million) and which then, during one season of their tenure, made the play-offs, entirely in keeping with their prior playing budget and Cat 1 academy. To their credit, one could say that the choice of Jaap Stam as manager was reasonably shrewd (though current league standing might contradict that) but over and above that their contribution to Reading making the play-offs was non-existent..... and in the meantime, money was being siphoned out, to the long-term detriment of the club. I note that some careful re-writing of history is being done on this thread by the lemmings to state that the Thais were fine funding Reading FC in the Championship, but could not afford to fund it in the Premier League. Leaving aside the financial illiteracy of that claim (Premier League clubs MAKE money; Championship clubs lose money) it is also a lie. Please read this link, where "Lady Sasima" makes it very clear that her consortium was struggling to fund Reading in the Championship. www.getreading.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/reading-fc-takeover-expensive-run-12874831Reading's ongoing running losses in the Championship are circa £5-£6 million per annum. At the time she made this statement, she and Tiger had already pawned the stadium for £15 million and siphoned off the development land. So her claim that they were finding Reading too expensive was stretching the truth, to put it politely. None of the above means that Tiger will definitely repeat these actions at OUFC; of course it doesn't. He deserves a fair hearing (should he be mounting a takeover), but it is bordering on insanity to suggest that his track record at our nearest rival does not beg questions. Whoever takes over OUFC is going to need a strategy and deep pockets if they are to take us forward, because we are near enough at the peak of what we can reasonably be expected to achieve under the current structural paradigm. You rant and rave as usual, then put in the caveat that he deserves a fair hearing. Says it all really. For me, I said any investment can only be a good thing. It doesn't need adding that it should be responsibly checked out by eales first. Not sure that he is ranting and raving. He is making some very specific point and backing much of it up with facts. Without bringing any personalities into this (and based on history of owners over the decades) I can't believe that anybody does not have some concerns about Tiger based on what happened to Reading. Of course he may simply be a front for potential investors, but the point being made is that we should have some concerns based on Tiger's recent history...
|
|
|
Post by oldman159 on Oct 25, 2017 10:51:44 GMT
hope he wears socks...😱
|
|
|
Post by oxfordyankee on Oct 25, 2017 10:54:37 GMT
Myles is right to ask questions. We should all be appreciative that someone does the research to equip us with facts, not the emotion-led stream of consciousness that most of us (well, me) normally spout.
He also did it with Eales and Ashton, and while I think he got that one wrong (and I'm yet to ever see him admit to that), it was vital that we were equipped with information at a vital time. Myles wasn't the only one with huge doubts. The takeover was unpopular because of the popularity of their rival. Funny how our emotions, likes/dislikes and loyalties ebb and flow so freely, isn't it?
My two-penneth on the current situation: I'll judge people based on what they do while they're here. Ashton was demonised but was the architect of all that's been good, yet there's no doubt he was hugely unpopular at Watford. Tiger maybe the devil incarnate, but surely there's a chance that he's controlled by a different set of characters, with different expectations and aspirations, than those he was involved with at RFC.
I'll wait and see, I think.
|
|
|
Post by manorlounger on Oct 25, 2017 11:19:14 GMT
Angelic or demonic, the question remains, why would a Thai consortium or individual or whatever, want to invest in something that has no assets and will cost them a lot of money ongoing?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Oct 25, 2017 11:37:40 GMT
Reading through this thread, seems to me there are two aspects to this discussion:
1. Should we be concerned about the potential Thai owner, bearing in mind his actions at Reading and the rather murky history of some of his associates? Most seem to think there are reasonable concerns.
2. What is the motivation for questioning the potential new ownership? Is it purely because of the excellent research Myles has undertaken, or are there ulterior motives related to previous ownership bids? Some are wondering whether there's more to the questioning of the Thais than meets the eye.
Good discussion - something this forum does well.
|
|
|
Post by Denissmithswig on Oct 25, 2017 14:25:16 GMT
Reading through this thread, seems to me there are two aspects to this discussion: 1. Should we be concerned about the potential Thai owner, bearing in mind his actions at Reading and the rather murky history of some of his associates? Most seem to think there are reasonable concerns. 2. What is the motivation for questioning the potential new ownership? Is it purely because of the excellent research Myles has undertaken, or are there ulterior motives related to previous ownership bids? Some are wondering whether there's more to the questioning of the Thais than meets the eye. Good discussion - something this forum does well. Point 1 there is clear reason to question why Tiger would want to invest in the club. That is only natural especially given his past. Point 2 I think it is becoming more and more obvious there is an agenda to the questions being asked. This to me hasn’t been cleared up. I feel myles and Charlie would gain a bit more respect if they came out and addressed the direct questions about why they keep making digs at the current ownership and the timing of this thread on tiger’s dealings in the past rather than talking around the questions.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Oct 25, 2017 14:30:54 GMT
Point 2 I think it is becoming more and more obvious there is an agenda to the questions being asked. This to me hasn’t been cleared up. I feel myles and Charlie would gain a bit more respect if they came out and addressed the direct questions about why they keep making digs at the current ownership and the timing of this thread on tiger’s dealings in the past rather than talking around the questions. I refer you to the answers I gave on Page 4 of this thread. You'll also find this question there: But I ask you this, when there is a possible takeover by someone who has screwed over another club and has close ties to convicted money launderers, who appears to have the dubious agenda: those ensuring the full information is out in the public domain, or those who seem keen to suppress it and question motives?
|
|
|
Post by CheltenhamYellow on Oct 25, 2017 15:03:45 GMT
I’ll come in here as a neutral, then. Happy to listen to all views.... but has Myles yet admitted that he was wrong about Eales’ motives? So he could be wrong about Tiger’s? It’s a question: not a statement.
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on Oct 25, 2017 15:25:55 GMT
Surely, whether Myles was right or wrong about Eales' motives (and many of us were at least skeptical at the time), looking into the past dealings - especially the football dealings - of a 'potential' investor is both interesting and sensible. In this case, I'd add 'alarming' to that.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 25, 2017 15:27:48 GMT
Surely, whether Myles was right or wrong about Eales' motives (and many of us were at least skeptical at the time), looking into the past dealings - especially the football dealings - of a 'potential' investor is both interesting and sensible. In this case, I'd add 'alarming' to that. But in admitting you were wrong about Darryl, do u not trust him to bring on board someone suitable and trustworthy ? It’s a major decision, and especially if it’s investment rather than a full take over, why would he ?
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on Oct 25, 2017 16:24:46 GMT
But in admitting you were wrong about Darryl, do u not trust him to bring on board someone suitable and trustworthy ? It’s a major decision, and especially if it’s investment rather than a full take over, why would he ? Personally I seem to remember saying that my stance at the time was 'skeptical optimism' - and we were still discussing the possibility of Water Eaton at the time, so there was certainly an opportunity for money and/or progress to be made, whether for the club or the owner (and certainly Kassam!). But all of that is water under the bridge really and no longer worth further raking over. Do I trust Eales? Yes, to a large extent I do. But I don't think he is perfect, I don't think he is infallible and I don't by any means think that he always tells the whole story. I also don't think he is very keen on investing more in the club. However, if we got to the Championship (and that isn't impossible) then his current investment has paid off - he may well need to get some more money into the club to realise that ambition. In his previous VC career, he may well have had to deal with and work with people who were slightly less pure than the driven slush and perhaps less than totally trustworthy.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 25, 2017 16:56:34 GMT
But in admitting you were wrong about Darryl, do u not trust him to bring on board someone suitable and trustworthy ? It’s a major decision, and especially if it’s investment rather than a full take over, why would he ? Personally I seem to remember saying that my stance at the time was 'skeptical optimism' - and we were still discussing the possibility of Water Eaton at the time, so there was certainly an opportunity for money and/or progress to be made, whether for the club or the owner (and certainly Kassam!). But all of that is water under the bridge really and no longer worth further raking over. Do I trust Eales? Yes, to a large extent I do. But I don't think he is perfect, I don't think he is infallible and I don't by any means think that he always tells the whole story. I also don't think he is very keen on investing more in the club. However, if we got to the Championship (and that isn't impossible) then his current investment has paid off - he may well need to get some more money into the club to realise that ambition. In his previous VC career, he may well have had to deal with and work with people who were slightly less pure than the driven slush and perhaps less than totally trustworthy. I think it would be fair to say that change will always leave fans skeptical, be that manager, owner, ground whatever. Some show it less than others, I tend to air on the side of let’s see what they do rather than judge them on what they might do. Now mark Ashton was painted in the same footballing light, as tiger. A disaster by all accounts from Watford fans selling off ground around the stadium (sound familiar ?) and Darryl was the asset stripping vc, coming In to strip assets we don’t have. Now 3 years on and the same people have failed to admit they got it wrong big time, and are starting all over again. Only difference we don’t have the dream option local team methven bid to try and be swayed to (yet) Now it might just be myles is a very suspicious fan, and wouldn’t trust anyone. Although we didn’t have any threads about sartori, which despite Charles saying these questions were asked in private is a bit odd that sometimes it’s worth sharing these massive worries publicly and some times not. Darryl was still being heavily criticised not so long ago, largely by my me before realising where nearly all that info came from. He also describes this forum as often being “a source of conspiracies, unhelpful rumours, leaks and typically unrepresentative concern” Darryl has made mistakes, and I’m sure would do some things differently. Wasn’t so long ago everyone was telling me to trust him, and look at what he has done rather than what he wasn’t/isn’t doing. If u do that it’s hard to see him agreeing to sell to bad nasty people, when he didn’t to Juan for the best interests of the club
|
|
|
Post by Long John Silver on Oct 25, 2017 17:30:54 GMT
It seems perfectly reasonable to do a bit of digging into the history of any possible new owner.
Whether Myles has an agenda, or whether he is just showing concern, is pretty much irrelevant. He has come up with some interesting detail about Tiger's past football history and associates. If it all plays out and the concerns are unfounded then Myles will be the one taking flak on here, no doubt.
What I can't understand though, is those who don't want to know any information, or don't want it posted here. What's their agenda against information being made available to the rest of us?
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on Oct 25, 2017 17:38:13 GMT
I’m waiting for the statement from DE stating he has called of a potential takeover/investment at the last minute as it wasn’t right.
|
|
|
Post by mcf86 on Oct 25, 2017 17:49:19 GMT
I'm looking forward to Darryl getting in a few rounds of tom yam.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 25, 2017 17:52:11 GMT
It seems perfectly reasonable to do a bit of digging into the history of any possible new owner. Whether Myles has an agenda, or whether he is just showing concern, is pretty much irrelevant. He has come up with some interesting detail about Tiger's past football history and associates. If it all plays out and the concerns are unfounded then Myles will be the one taking flak on here, no doubt. What I can't understand though, is those who don't want to know any information, or don't want it posted here. What's their agenda against information being made available to the rest of us? There’s also a big difference between information and speculation. And with myles himself confirming (eventually) that he has no evidence what so ever that the other people in his post will be involved. It’s then bordering on scaremongering possibilities. If there was evidence then it’s a different matter, but just listing people he’s known in the past who have criminal records, with no evidence of their involvement is (what does Charles call it when someone says something about Juan ?) oh yes ,defamation of character
|
|
|
Post by Long John Silver on Oct 25, 2017 18:09:23 GMT
It seems perfectly reasonable to do a bit of digging into the history of any possible new owner. Whether Myles has an agenda, or whether he is just showing concern, is pretty much irrelevant. He has come up with some interesting detail about Tiger's past football history and associates. If it all plays out and the concerns are unfounded then Myles will be the one taking flak on here, no doubt. What I can't understand though, is those who don't want to know any information, or don't want it posted here. What's their agenda against information being made available to the rest of us? There’s also a big difference between information and speculation. And with myles himself confirming (eventually) that he has no evidence what so ever that the other people in his post will be involved. It’s then bordering on scaremongering possibilities. If there was evidence then it’s a different matter, but just listing people he’s known in the past who have criminal records, with no evidence of their involvement is (what does Charles call it when someone says something about Juan ?) oh yes ,defamation of character Of course there's no evidence that any of his previous associates would be involved, but don't you think the fact that he was involved with those types previously is cause for possible concern? Or are we better off just thinking he's watching us regularly because we are playing decent football...
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 25, 2017 18:16:12 GMT
There’s also a big difference between information and speculation. And with myles himself confirming (eventually) that he has no evidence what so ever that the other people in his post will be involved. It’s then bordering on scaremongering possibilities. If there was evidence then it’s a different matter, but just listing people he’s known in the past who have criminal records, with no evidence of their involvement is (what does Charles call it when someone says something about Juan ?) oh yes ,defamation of character Of course there's no evidence that any of his previous associates would be involved, but don't you think the fact that he was involved with those types previously is cause for possible concern? Or are we better off just thinking he's watching us regularly because we are playing decent football... It’s only cause for concern if they are involved. I’m sure u could find a number of people Darryl or Juan has done business with in the past that have less that squeaky clean cv’s. I don’t doubt for a min he’s watching us with any other reason than getting involved. But if he’s looking to invest £1m he would wouldn’t need any of those associates would he? So is it worth worrying about and getting all worked up over people that there is no evidence will be involved. It’s like saying avoided anyone who ever worked with jimmy saville. Horrible associate. By all means judge him on what he did at reading, but even that is a guarantee as we don’t know what he will be investing, and there isn’t any assets to strip. And mark Ashton has proved that even doing that at one club doesn’t mean u will be a disaster at the next.
|
|
|
Post by rickyotto on Oct 25, 2017 18:16:43 GMT
There’s also a big difference between information and speculation. And with myles himself confirming (eventually) that he has no evidence what so ever that the other people in his post will be involved. It’s then bordering on scaremongering possibilities. If there was evidence then it’s a different matter, but just listing people he’s known in the past who have criminal records, with no evidence of their involvement is (what does Charles call it when someone says something about Juan ?) oh yes ,defamation of character Of course there's no evidence that any of his previous associates would be involved, but don't you think the fact that he was involved with those types previously is cause for possible concern? Or are we better off just thinking he's watching us regularly because we are playing decent football... I've heard we're playing very well but perhaps lack pace and width up top
|
|
|
Post by myles on Oct 25, 2017 19:40:35 GMT
There’s also a big difference between information and speculation. And with myles himself confirming (eventually) that he has no evidence what so ever that the other people in his post will be involved. It’s then bordering on scaremongering possibilities. If there was evidence then it’s a different matter, but just listing people he’s known in the past who have criminal records, with no evidence of their involvement is (what does Charles call it when someone says something about Juan ?) oh yes ,defamation of character Until a deal is signed, or the make up of a consortium making a bid is announced, then of course there is no "evidence", unless you happen to be Mystic Meg. And picking up on your rather crass point on a later post about avoiding anybody who worked with Jimmy Saville, that just shows you are massively missing the point here. It's not just people who have known Tiger, it's people who were co-directors at Reading FC, co-directors of the companies who stripped the land from the football club, and who facilitated these acts - including people deemed incredibly toxic by the Premier League. If there is nothing happening with these people, why doesn't Darryl say so? And if there is, surely it's better we are aware of who the likely players are rather than just wait until a deal is announced and THEN start finding out what they are like? And, yet again, there were no threads with similar revelations about Sartori because, quite simply, similar revelations don't appear to be out there to be found! If you have evidence similar to what I have found on Tiger, please feel free to post it and it'll get a fair hearing. Otherwise your point is just "Whatabouttery".
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 25, 2017 19:46:34 GMT
There’s also a big difference between information and speculation. And with myles himself confirming (eventually) that he has no evidence what so ever that the other people in his post will be involved. It’s then bordering on scaremongering possibilities. If there was evidence then it’s a different matter, but just listing people he’s known in the past who have criminal records, with no evidence of their involvement is (what does Charles call it when someone says something about Juan ?) oh yes ,defamation of character Until a deal is signed, or the make up of a consortium making a bid is announced, then of course there is no "evidence", unless you happen to be Mystic Meg. And picking up on your rather crass point on a later post about avoiding anybody who worked with Jimmy Saville, that just shows you are massively missing the point here. It's not just people who have known Tiger, it's people who were co-directors at Reading FC, co-directors of the companies who stripped the land from the football club, and who facilitated these acts - including people deemed incredibly toxic by the Premier League. If there is nothing happening with these people, why doesn't Darryl say so? And if there is, surely it's better we are aware of who the likely players are rather than just wait until a deal is announced and THEN start finding out what they are like? And, yet again, there were no threads with similar revelations about Sartori because, quite simply, similar revelations don't appear to be out there to be found! If you have evidence similar to what I have found on Tiger, please feel free to post it and it'll get a fair hearing. Otherwise your point is just "Whatabouttery". Whatabouttery, sounds the opposite to scaremongering . Why doesn’t Darryl comment on it ? 🤔 a source of conspiracies, unhelpful rumours, leaks and typically unrepresentative concern. Maybe u have just cried wolf to many times Fill us in with some of the detail then myles How much is tiger investing, for how much stake? What’s his plan? How much are the others investing? What’s their plan on the stadium ? You know a lot about them so u must know these key aspects to judge a take over ? Is it a take over ? Is it investment ? While having an air of caution, I think I’ll wait till we actually know a bit more before jumping to any conclusions, particularly worse case ones. Can u confirm that u got it massively wrong about Darryl and Ashton !
|
|
|
Post by myles on Oct 25, 2017 20:09:08 GMT
Who’s jumping to conclusions?
I have posted a lot of factual, verifiable information. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. There are interesting questions about who made certain introductions and whether certain bodies have a vested, financial interest in not digging too deep.
Tiger may or may not be involved in a takeover, or may or may not be buying a stake in the club. I have not said that he would definitely do x, y, or z if he does invest in some way. What surprises me (and judging by posts on here, I’m not alone in this) is that some people simply don’t want ANY information about Tiger being brought into the spotlight. Now, why could that be?
As for “getting it wrong on Eales and Ashton”, I again refer you to my earlier answer. The best way to judge a chairman is the state they leave the club in when they depart and in whose hands they leave it. When that time comes I’ll happily give my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 25, 2017 20:14:07 GMT
Who’s jumping to conclusions? I have posted a lot of factual, verifiable information. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. There are interesting questions about who made certain introductions and whether certain bodies have a vested, financial interest in not digging too deep. Tiger may or may not be involved in a takeover, or may or may not be buying a stake in the club. I have not said that he would definitely do x, y, or z if he does invest in some way. What surprises me (and judging by posts on here, I’m not alone in this) is that some people simply don’t want ANY information about Tiger being brought into the spotlight. Now, why could that be? As for “getting it wrong on Eales and Ashton”, I again refer you to my earlier answer. The best way to judge a chairman is the state they leave the club in when they depart and in whose hands they leave it. When that time comes I’ll happily give my opinion. Arhhh right so u judging him as a “brummie on a stag do”. And needing to “remember who the elderly gentleman who sits behind him is”. I presume u mean Charles 😉 is waiting to see the state he leaves the club in when he departs ? Healthy scepticism and monitoring red flags r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?share_fid=98885&share_tid=18588&url=http%3A%2F%2Fyellowsforum%2Eco%2Euk%2Fthread%2F18588&share_type=thttps://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?share_fid=98885&share_tid=18588&url=http%3A%2F%2Fyellowsforum%2Eco%2Euk%2Fthread%2F18588&share_type=tNo one has said it shouldn’t be brought to light. You would surely agree though with there being no evidence of their involvement, it’s likely to paint a one sided picture? After all I didn’t see u list any benefits or caveats in ur opening post
|
|
|
Post by myles on Oct 25, 2017 20:20:23 GMT
If you would like to challenge it and provide the benefits and caveats, please do so.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 25, 2017 20:24:09 GMT
I have challenged it, and u admitted ur self u have no evidence any of the others will be involved . It may happen and u can claim to be mystic meg, but u likely we could stop it. So what reason. Worry everyone with no evidence ? Swing us toward a more favourable bid? Turn people on Darryl for making a bad decision?
Well one potential benefit is the extra investment (even fairly small) of his own money (no backers) could help Darryl achieve the goal of reaching the championship . Like u I have no evidence that will happen. But it doesn’t mean it not aLso a possible outcome . No assets to strip. Chucking a few million of his own money into the pot. What major objections would u have to that
|
|
|
Post by 1OUFC on Oct 25, 2017 20:24:18 GMT
You rant and rave as usual, then put in the caveat that he deserves a fair hearing. Says it all really. For me, I said any investment can only be a good thing. It doesn't need adding that it should be responsibly checked out by eales first. Not sure that he is ranting and raving. He is making some very specific point and backing much of it up with facts. Without bringing any personalities into this (and based on history of owners over the decades) I can't believe that anybody does not have some concerns about Tiger based on what happened to Reading. Of course he may simply be a front for potential investors, but the point being made is that we should have some concerns based on Tiger's recent history... I fully agree with you, but I would put it as maybe questions they could answer, before anything happens. Hopefully Eales will be the one to do this.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Oct 25, 2017 20:27:45 GMT
I have challenged it, and u admitted ur self u have no evidence any of the others will be involved . Well one potential benefit is the extra investment (even fairly small) if his own money (no backers) could help Darryl achieve the goal of reaching the championship . Like u I have no evidence that will happen. But it doesn’t. No assets to strip. Chucking a few million of his own money into the pot. What major objections would u have to that Is there any evidence that Tiger has “a few million of his own money” to chuck into the pot?
|
|
|
Post by 1OUFC on Oct 25, 2017 20:31:02 GMT
Could he not be a frontman for a Thai consortium, and not the main man? Er, yeah. That's kinda one of the points I was making in the original post. It's the likely make up of that consortium and the source of their funds which is the big question here. Some people say he is related to the Caraboa(sp) group others not. Speculation will only end when some sort of announcement is made. I think you're right it will be the make up of the consortium that people will be most interested in.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 25, 2017 20:31:20 GMT
I have challenged it, and u admitted ur self u have no evidence any of the others will be involved . Well one potential benefit is the extra investment (even fairly small) if his own money (no backers) could help Darryl achieve the goal of reaching the championship . Like u I have no evidence that will happen. But it doesn’t. No assets to strip. Chucking a few million of his own money into the pot. What major objections would u have to that Is there any evidence that Tiger has “a few million of his own money” to chuck into the pot? U must have evidence that he doesn’t then, with all ur research? After all he drives a old car with a silly number plate, and I’m just a humble thicko. Enlighten me to his net wealth
|
|
|
Post by myles on Oct 25, 2017 20:34:25 GMT
Is there any evidence that Tiger has “a few million of his own money” to chuck into the pot? U must have evidence that he doesn’t then, with all ur research? Ah, so when I make a claim, you demand evidence from me to support it. When I challenge you on your claims, it’s also down to me to produce the evidence? Righty-ho.
|
|